Dawkins on the Late Late Show

Zillah

lazylad wrote:

maybe that's what people with faith who say they feel good for no apparent reason can sense. A force unmeasuarble to humans. I have noticed that some very scientific people are cold and emotional and of course exceptions. Science as you well know doen'st know everything. Science basically denies everything until proven and since Dawkins mentioned about the world being flat and everybody believing it well how else were scientists and people going to prove it etc without exploring? We have not explored afterlife and may never get there after death. Maybe death is a process of change from what makes us individual into a different form of energy that is beyound human understanding and too advanced for science to ever creat a theory about. Maybe there are forms of energy we can't account for. Maybe its a design of our possible creaters from galaxies away to keep us from knowing but they make us aware of their presence.

Maybe maybe maybe.

True. There's all sorts of stuff we don't understand. So lets not all go 'round making up answers then, shall we?

(I know he's banned but I felt like responding to that.)

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

Goodbye lazylad.

One too many ignorant generalisations voiced.

I'll consider unbanning you in a week if you PM me with a convincing reason, and a promise to be less ignorant of the subject you are ranting about.

don't ask him to make promises you know he can't keep:D

schuart wrote:

we have quite a bit of evidence for that

disagree, Dawkins is poor when the envoiroment is poor that is he only weakness as far as I can see, he becomes exhausted from people like the woman who on the late late suddenly declares 'it's a miracle'.
He was much more cohesive on Paxman, the Q&A at the pittsburgh(i think) womans uni, the atheist tapes etc.
Just watched an interview on bbc news, he was great, but he has to roll out the same arguments
i.e
faith is based on believing something without having any evidence
if you use god to explain creation you are left with the more difficult job of explaining god
if god is outside of logic then anything goes
religon doesn't give us morals although we cherrypick some from various holy books

and on and on and on

poor old dawkins

Schuhart

stevejazzx wrote:

Dawkins is poor when the envoiroment is poor that is he only weakness as far as I can see, he becomes exhausted from people like the woman who on the late late suddenly declares 'it's a miracle'.
He was much more cohesive on Paxman, the Q&A at the pittsburgh(i think) womans uni, the atheist tapes etc.

Which is pretty much what we're saying. He's fine debating with people who agree with him or at least approach issues in the same way as he does. He's hopeless at taking on people hitting him with a different perspective - even if they make the kind of argument that can be anticipated.

If he's serious about trying to reach those people, then he really needs to spend some time reflecting on how to respond to the kind of 'religion works for me on a daily basis' kind of argument that is just out there. At some level we have to accept that religious belief has been and still is a perfectly normal human feature. You have to start from where people are, not where you want them to be.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Which is pretty much what we're saying. He's fine debating with people who agree with him or at least approach issues in the same way as he does. He's hopeless at taking on people hitting him with a different perspective - even if they make the kind of argument that can be anticipated.

To an extent I sympathise, particularly if I've been on the Creationist thread...some of the thinking the other side uses is very curved, if not downright knotted.

Schuhart wrote:

If he's serious about trying to reach those people, then he really needs to spend some time reflecting on how to respond to the kind of 'religion works for me on a daily basis' kind of argument that is just out there. At some level we have to accept that religious belief has been and still is a perfectly normal human feature. You have to start from where people are, not where you want them to be.

Start from where people are, not where you want them to be - the opposite is the mark of the ideologue, who cannot understand why people aren't already where they want them to be (unless of course they have been deluded/brainwashed). This is the kind of thing I find troubling about 'militant atheism' - it smells like another ideology: one that cannot encompass the idea of faith except as a delusion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

This is the kind of thing I find troubling about 'militant atheism' - it smells like another ideology: one that cannot encompass the idea of faith except as a delusion.

And possibly his use of the word "Delusion" immediately puts people on the defensive. He automatically becomes somebody to disagree with rather than someone to hear out.

Tim Robbins

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm shocked because I didn't realise the level of religosity that the Irish public have. I personally don't know anyone who goes to mass on a regular basis, for instance. Most people seem to be Roman Catholic on paper (and in the Census), but haven't really given it much thought, it was just a default position. [/B]

I don't think it "religosity" but more spirituality most people feel.
I know a lot of people that don't go to the RC anymore but still believe in God and feel some spirituality and of course if they are female 90% want to get married in a Church.

I think this is a very complex, personnel issue. Faith / Spirituality does give people a lot of hope, even it is a delusion or a myth. Dawkins doesn't seem to be sensitive to that fact, life is tough for most people (Check out the amount of people on prozak these days). People see him as someone who is arrogant and low on empathy and compassion.

Ultimately people want something that will help them get through their life irrespective of whether it is correct or incorrect which is entirely separate issue.

As an atheist, I find it really annoying when fundies preach to me, so I guess it goes both ways, i.e. non-atheist people don't like to be preached at by militant atheists who are unaware of their personnel circumstances i.e. their need or reasons to believe.

Also, as someone with interest in debating, I think he lost that debate. He contradicted himself and refuted some points by saying he wasn't interested.

The atheists in the audience spoke better if you ask me.

stevejazzx

Schuhart wrote:

Which is pretty much what we're saying. He's fine debating with people who agree with him or at least approach issues in the same way as he does. He's hopeless at taking on people hitting him with a different perspective - even if they make the kind of argument that can be anticipated.

Well Paxman never agrees with anybody, in fact as I'm sure you're aware he is excellent at taking a contrary position. Also, at the womens Uni he was excellent in shooting down the ridculous arguments proposed. There was no bumbling mediator (Pat Kenny, Turbidy etc) and Dawkins was allowed a measured platform to communicate his ideas.
Obviously I am supporter of Dawkins, nevertheless I am trying to look at this as evenly as possible and I still don't find that Dawkins is weak when conversing with regualr people. He is often rushed and interupted, this seems to be the main problem.
The Atheist was correct earlier when he identified that use of the word 'Delusion' insults people and they automatically take up a contrary position to him and simply are not open to change. Dawkins has in the past pussyfooted around the idea of the destructive nature of religon but recently has decided that he would tackle the issue head on. The approach he's making is deliberately challenging because massaging the senstivities of peoples delirious beliefs is clearly unproductive, unstimulating and unchallenging. His current aganda is to honestly state his real genuine belief upfront and back it up with hard logic.

schuart wrote:

If he's serious about trying to reach those people, then he really needs to spend some time reflecting on how to respond to the kind of 'religion works for me on a daily basis' kind of argument that is just out there. At some level we have to accept that religious belief has been and still is a perfectly normal human feature. You have to start from where people are, not where you want them to be.

Dawkins is not trying to save the world. There is no need or indeed obligation from his part to belittle his fine arguments by accepting the trivial needs of desperate people who can't function without a regimented faith based diety guiding thier existence. Dawkins should be(IMO) arguing and debating with people of stature capable of fully understanding his postion.
It would be a very backward world if brilliant people are obliged by societal norms to dismantle their intellgence everytime they encounter ignorance. In my opinion the obligation lies on ordinary people to reach a level where they can converse with People like Mr. Dawkins in a constructive way. How many people in that audience do you think had a working understanding of Darwinian evolution? Probably 5%, yet each of them felt more than qualified to disregard it as evidence of existence. As a biologist/scientist why does Dawkins have to come to the level of these people, surely they are the ones obliged to get somewhere closer to his, for if this is not the case then what we are saying is that
'the intellectual indequacies of the popular masses dictates how we treat the process of debate'
Also I don't think you can claim that deconstructing the complexities of complex arguments it is the only way to reach such people, as the process of deconstructing those complexities ruins ones argument. For example Dawkins would probably love to show the whole audience a 6 hour video demonstration of Darwinian Evoultion, scientific testimony, fossil dating, cosmology, moleclular function, dna etc etc all the vastly complex things which cause him to be an atheist but he can't get anywhere near such things during a 20 minute debate and quite frankly, who could?

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

t would be a very backward world if brilliant people are obliged by societal norms to dismantle their intellgence everytime they encounter ignorance.

.dluow ti oS

yllaidroc,
walffocS

stevejazzx

litrealist a quite you're

btw you've put the comma in the wrong place

Zombrex

Dawkins problem is that he gets angry and flustered when debating with stupid people how have nonsense arguments. Which, on some level is to be expected. The problem is, most people are stupid people (when it comes to debating science), so he is always going to get peoples backs up.

For example, I remember Dawkins on I think it was the Last Word or NewsTalk, debating with an idiot from the Indo. The idiot (can remember his name) kept saying that God had to exist because we are here, aren't we, as if it was simple logic - We are here, God made us, therefore God exists.

Dawkins seemed to have no real ability to calmly pointout that this is such a stupid argument as to be little more than nonsense. So he just got angry, and it looks (to the indo idiot at least) that Dawkins had no response. In fact he did have a response, his response was that the Indo guy was talking bullsh*t, but this didn't come across well.

So Dawkins can argue with intelligent people who either accept or don't accept his points. The problem he has is arguing with lay people, because he has trouble pointing out that not only the argument is flawed but the actual way they are debating is illogical to the point of nonsense.

Sometimes I think he is too intelligent for his own good, in that he seems to have trouble understanding a lay persons argument and as such has trouble understanding how to counter the argument in a way that the lay person will also understand.

He should pop over to the Creationists thread in Christianity Forum if he wants a bit of practice countering nonsense arguments

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

As an atheist, I find it really annoying when fundies preach to me, so I guess it goes both ways

I agree.

I'm absolutely positive that some religious people get terribly offended by having opinions like Dawkins' voiced in public. No doubt it even distresses some.

And you know what...when those people start objecting to their own religious views also being aired, or suggest that the solution would be to ban public discussion of the topic from any perspective, pro- or anti-, then I'll listen to them.

Until then, I'll consider that they want differing standards - freedom of speech for those who believe one thing, and a gag-order in the name of avoiding offence for those who don't.

I can think of very. very few topics where this is the accepted standard, and I would have extreme difficulty seeing how atheism could be argued to rank alongside them as an acceptably unsuitable topic for public discourse.

Sure, there's good reason to want both sides to remain civil and levelheaded, and not to force their opinions down other people's throats etc. But the way I look at it is that for every Dawkins, there's a dozen or more Ted Haggards or Jimmy Falwells. Indeed, if one merely limits oneself to Christians and atheists, and leaves other religions aside for the moment, I think it would be a tough job to argue that the atheists were anywhere but a distant second place in this regard.

When Christians seek a gag-order on such people as Falwell and Haggard, then I'll listen to their suggestions about the propriety of what should and shouldn't be allowed as public discourse. After all, don't they put their faith in a book which tells them that before attending the mote in their neighbour's eye, they should first remove the beam in their own?

I don't want to make out that this is a Christianity vs Atheism issue, because Atheism isn't about the rejection of any single, specific religion, but I'm concentrating on Christianity because the reality is that you rarely hear anyone but a Christian complaining about atheists not knowing when to keep their mouths shut, and also that we live in a part of the world which is predominantly Christian.

Faith / Spirituality does give people a lot of hope, even it is a delusion or a myth.

True.

I would point out, however, that people also have accepted, put up with and/or done any number of otherwise-unacceptable things in life because their belief in God has led them to believe its the right thing.

If a religious person ever was distressed by the arguments presented to them, I would only ask them to consider one question - if they had heard these arguments earlier in their life would they have chanegd they way they lived???

If the answer is no, then the arguments shouldn't be distressing. If the answer is yes, then the arguments are distressing only in that the person now believes religion has led them astray. Why is the atheist to blame?

Actually, I might ask them a second question. I'd ask them whether or not they approved of, for example, Christian missionaries going into the interior of New Guinea and attempting to convert the tribes there to Christianity, or whether they felt that such people should be left with their own beliefs because they obviously were happy enough living with them, even if these beliefs were just delusional or mythological.

Two wrongs most certainly don't make a right. But I'm not the one arguing that its wrong. I'm the one arguing that its a tactic employed by both sides, and both sides must be treated equally regardless of whether we believe its wrong or right. And part of this is that one should want one's own side to address what one perceives as what is being done wrong before arguing the other side should do likewise.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

litrealist a quite you're

btw you've put the comma in the wrong place

So I have! Thanks.

The comment isn't intended as sarcastic, by the way. I do think that 'the intellectual indequacies of the popular masses dictates how we treat the process of debate', and I think that's inevitable when debate is conducted through the mass media - because the popular masses are their audience, and the idea of challenging their 'intellectual inadequacies' appears to have been dropped some while ago.

That is not to argue that Dawkins, or anyone else arguing for atheism in public, should dumb down - because the arguments against religion require intelligence, and therefore can't very well be argued in a dumbed-down form.

The unfortunate side-effect is that, as long as the argument takes place on television, the playing field is quite badly skewed in favour of the dumber side.

,cordially
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins problem is that he gets angry and flustered when debating with stupid people how have nonsense arguments. Which, on some level is to be expected. The problem is, most people are stupid people (when it comes to debating science), so he is always going to get peoples backs up.

For example, I remember Dawkins on I think it was the Last Word or NewsTalk, debating with an idiot from the Indo. The idiot (can remember his name) kept saying that God had to exist because we are here, aren't we, as if it was simple logic - We are here, God made us, therefore God exists.

Dawkins seemed to have no real ability to calmly pointout that this is such a stupid argument as to be little more than nonsense. So he just got angry, and it looks (to the indo idiot at least) that Dawkins had no response. In fact he did have a response, his response was that the Indo guy was talking bullsh*t, but this didn't come across well.

So Dawkins can argue with intelligent people who either accept or don't accept his points. The problem he has is arguing with lay people, because he has trouble pointing out that not only the argument is flawed but the actual way they are debating is illogical to the point of nonsense.

Sometimes I think he is too intelligent for his own good, in that he seems to have trouble understanding a lay persons argument and as such has trouble understanding how to counter the argument in a way that the lay person will also understand.

He should pop over to the Creationists thread in Christianity Forum if he wants a bit of practice countering nonsense arguments

Your man from the Indo is David Quinn and also beat Dawkins in that debate.
Quinn is a good speaker. He's made a few appearances on the panel of Question and Answers speaking about general issues and usually holds himself alright. Not all people who disagree with Dawkins are stupid, the other gentleman, on the Late Late is the Professor of Philsophy in UCD for example.
Dawkins doesn't like people disagreeing with him. Most militant aethists don't like people disagreeing with them - simple as that.

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

So I have! Thanks.

The comment isn't intended as sarcastic, by the way. I do think that 'the intellectual indequacies of the popular masses dictates how we treat the process of debate', and I think that's inevitable when debate is conducted through the mass media - because the popular masses are their audience, and the idea of challenging their 'intellectual inadequacies' appears to have been dropped some while ago.

That is not to argue that Dawkins, or anyone else arguing for atheism in public, should dumb down - because the arguments against religion require intelligence, and therefore can't very well be argued in a dumbed-down form.

The unfortunate side-effect is that, as long as the argument takes place on television, the playing field is quite badly skewed in favour of the dumber side.

,cordially
Scofflaw

you've only gone and done it again:rolleyes:

PS. I agree entirely.

Antidisestablishmentarianismly,

steve

aidan24326

Stevejazz, excellently put.

We are being a bit harsh on Dawkins. It's true that he may need to modify his style in certain circumstances, but tbf it can be incredibly difficult to argue/debate with people of strong religious faith as they are (alot of them anyway) simply not open to change. But I agree 100% with his stance of not pandering to these people at all. His point is why should religious views/beliefs receive such special treatment? That because a delusion (and that's EXACTLY what it is) that someone holds falls under the vague umbrella term of 'religion', that suddenly it's immune from any challenge/criticism.

Why should it be? I think a muslim suicide bomber who reckons he's off to paradise with his 72 virgins is a monumental idiot, and I'm not afraid to say it.

I think someone who believes that a sky god is listening to and responding to their prayers is delusional, and I would tell them so. To me the fact that religious people take such issue with any criticism of their beliefs (delusions) says alot about the actual insecurity of their beliefs and the deep-seated doubts that they may really have, but dare not admit.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Your man from the Indo is David Quinn and also beat Dawkins in that debate.
Quinn is a good speaker. He's made a few appearances on the panel of Question and Answers speaking about general issues and usually holds himself alright. Not all people who disagree with Dawkins are stupid, the other gentleman, on the Late Late is the Professor of Philsophy in UCD for example.
Dawkins doesn't like people disagreeing with him. Most militant aethists don't like people disagreeing with them - simple as that.

Not at all. Love it. Dawkins is just personally not very good at it, himself. There are plenty of theists with the same problem.

And there I think you are using militant in a pejorative way. Again, Dawkins himself is personally a militant atheist, but there is no such thing as 'militant atheism', which is your implication.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Your man from the Indo is David Quinn and also beat Dawkins in that debate.

How did he "beat" him?

Quinn defined God as being necessary because he defined the universe as needing a creator, and he defined said creator as having to be God. As Dawkins pointed out to him that only proved God existed by "defining him into existence". Quinns argument was a completely nonsense argument, and because I don't think Dawkins expects to have to argue anything so stupid he was rather at a loss as to how to debate with Quinn.

An old quote comes to mind "Never argue with a stupid person. They will just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

Tim Robbins wrote:

Not all people who disagree with Dawkins are stupid

I'm not saying they are stupid in general, I'm saying some of them (such as Quinn) use stupid arguments and seem unaware of the illogical nature of said arguments (ie they act in a stupid illogical manner when it comes to debating this topic). This frustrates Dawkins as he seems ill-equiped to argue with stupid arguments.

Quinns argument were stupid. Very stupid in fact. And the fact that Quinn could not see the blantantly obvious flaw in his argument implies he was being either stupid or purposely ignorant towards the debate.

Saying the universe has to have had a creator, and that such a creator must have been God, therefore God exists, is stupid. It doesn't show God exists unless you accept the inital statements, and there is no logical reason to accept either. I think Dawkins even asked him why does the universe need a creator and Quinn's response was along the lines of don't be silly of course it does. I mean what kind of an argument is that? A stupid one.

What if the universe didn't have a creator, or if such a creator wasn't God. Without these two assumptions Quinns argument shows nothing at all.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Dawkins doesn't like people disagreeing with him.

That isn't true.

I've seen Dawkins debate with people who don't agree with him, and he seemed to be quite enjoying himself.

What he doesn't like is debating with people who use nonsense points as arguments for their position, because he gets frustrated trying to argue with said nonsense.

And he gets very annoyed when people don't recongise that their points were nonsense. As someone said already he needs to learn to ignore the nonsense arguments, to not try and debate at that level, and put his points across as clearly as he can.

aidan24326

Tim Robbins wrote:

Your man from the Indo is David Quinn and also beat Dawkins in that debate.

No he didn't.

He beat him into submission alright, with a barrage of utter nonsense. In fact his argument was so completely stupid that Dawkins actually had difficulty responding to it, it's difficult to debate with someone who doesn't even understand what they're talking about, as Quinn clearly doesn't. Dawkins seemed somewhat bemused. At least they could have had someone on the show who had the ability to debate with Dawkins in an intelligent manner. Quinn seemed like an intellectually arrogant fool who thinks he has all the answers but was just talking gibberish as far as I could make out.

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

Your man from the Indo is David Quinn and also beat Dawkins in that debate.
Quinn is a good speaker. He's made a few appearances on the panel of Question and Answers speaking about general issues and usually holds himself alright.

Given the nature of the to-and-fro, I would suggest that if Quinn is a smart guy, a good speaker and he won that debate, he did so by deliberately taking a line of argumentation that Dawkins could not effectively counter in a debate-style forum.

Not all people who disagree with Dawkins are stupid,

Indeed. Playing stupid is a very valid and intelligent debating tactic and it seems to be one taken quite often against Dawkins.

Dawkins doesn't like people disagreeing with him.

Maybe he doesn't like people presenting the same tired old arguments to him time after time as though they're some new relevation he's never dealt with.

The vast majority of "opposition" shows from the off that they want him to re-establish the same argument he has already formed in his written material, rather than saying "ok...I know this is where you stand, but here's the flaws/weaknesses/omissions I see in your argument".

It would be nice to see that, but instead we get people offering the same type of stuff that he's already discussed to death, as though its somehow new now that they are prsenting it.


People tell him they disagree with him, but from the very stance they take its generally clear that they're not familiar with his work (or are pretending not to be).

I can see how that would be annoying - someone telling me that they know my conclusion is wrong whilst showing that they're not all that familiar with the argument I used to reach said conclusion.

Most militant aethists don't like people disagreeing with them - simple as that.

people who can't offer critism without making sweeping negative generalisations about their subject at the same time are biased. Simple as that.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins seemed to have no real ability to calmly pointout that this is such a stupid argument as to be little more than nonsense. So he just got angry, and it looks (to the indo idiot at least) that Dawkins had no response. In fact he did have a response, his response was that the Indo guy was talking bullsh*t, but this didn't come across well.

We should write him a little crib sheet. The correct answer is to say "that's very interesting....can you prove it?". If they argue it's obvious, you say "hmmm...it doesn't appear to be obvious to Hindus, or Buddhists, etc...do you think they're wrong?".

Wicknight wrote:

So Dawkins can argue with intelligent people who either accept or don't accept his points. The problem he has is arguing with lay people, because he has trouble pointing out that not only the argument is flawed but the actual way they are debating is illogical to the point of nonsense.

Sometimes I think he is too intelligent for his own good, in that he seems to have trouble understanding a lay persons argument and as such has trouble understanding how to counter the argument in a way that the lay person will also understand.

There is no such thing as being "too intelligent". There is "only being intelligent in particular ways", or "being rather stupid in certain ways". Dawkins clearly lacks certain forms of intelligence, while possessing an awful lot of some others.

Wicknight wrote:

He should pop over to the Creationists thread in Christianity Forum if he wants a bit of practice countering nonsense arguments

That would be....interesting. Yes, interesting. Mmm. But not actually, a good idea, maybe, now I come to think about the ways in which it would be interesting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

There is no such thing as being "too intelligent". There is "only being intelligent in particular ways", or "being rather stupid in certain ways". Dawkins clearly lacks certain forms of intelligence, while possessing an awful lot of some others.

Of course you are right, "intelligence" is a rather abstract term. While people think someone like David Beckham is "dumb" he is actually very intelligent in what he does, certainly far more than Prof Hawkins. Dawkins is good at the mental areas that he works in (which is probably why he works in them)

Perhaps too good at debating would be better phrase to use, or at least too used to expecting debate with good debaters and intelligent arguments, since Dawkins seems to expect that he will be presented with well thought out and considered arguments when ever he is challanged.

As I said to Tim, in these situations Dawkins seems to enjoy debate. He might not agree with these arguments, but at least they won't have logic holes as large as the grand cannon for him to first deal with before he can get to the interesting questions.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Of course you are right, "intelligence" is a rather abstract term. While people think someone like David Beckham is "dumb" he is actually very intelligent in what he does, certainly far more than Prof Hawkins. Dawkins is good at the mental areas that he works in (which is probably why he works in them)

Perhaps too good at debating would be better phrase to use, or at least too used to expecting debate with good debaters and intelligent arguments, since Dawkins seems to expect that he will be presented with well thought out and considered arguments when ever he is challanged.

As I said to Tim, in these situations Dawkins seems to enjoy debate. He might not agree with these arguments, but at least they won't have logic holes as large as the grand cannon for him to first deal with before he can get to the interesting questions.

Wicknight, I fear you biased.
I am atheist but I am open minded enough to admit when the "spokeperson" gets beaten or when the other side wins a debate.
He contradicts himself, he says his not interested in certain areas, he uses stupid analogies.
In fact he's added nothing to the core arguments of atheism / theism accept media attention.
All of his arguments have been well covered from Epicurius, to Russell etc.

Esmereldina

No. He represents a doctrinaire form of atheism for which I've nearly as little time as I have for theism, because it too is an ideology. There is also a personality cult beginning to build up around him, which I dislike even more.

He is uncrowned for a very good reason - because there is no "king of Atheism".

cordially,
Scofflaw[/QUOTE]


I agree with this. I am disturbed that anyone would want any form of atheism that has a 'king' ... even an unofficial one, and I think 'evangelical atheism' is just as distasteful as evangelical Christianity. One of the reasons I have discarded my religious beliefs is precisely because of my distaste for anything which claimed to be an ideology which explained everything, and while I agree with much of what Dawkins argues, I dislike his style, and some of his conclusions. I think that in his eagerness to point out the evils caused by religion (which undoubtedly are many) he ignores many of the underlying political and cultural currents and causes, of religion is often merely a tool.
I could go into this in more detail, but I have work to do

Esmereldina

Oops. That first part was a quotation from Scofflaw, not me. For some reason it didn't show up as quotation though... apologies for (unintentionally) trying to steal your words!

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Wicknight, I fear you biased.

Er, ok .... is that a point?

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am atheist but I am open minded enough to admit when the "spokeperson" gets beaten or when the other side wins a debate.

Why when ever someone runs out of something to say they call the otherside close minded?

You have stated that Quinn won his argument with Dawkins. I have put forward exactly why I think that position is nonsense. Dawkins exposed Quinn as being an ignorant bully. As aidan24326 points out Quinn "won" that debate by beating Dawkins into bemused submission with a torrent of nonsense.

If you would like to counter, feel free. Otherwise your opinions on how biased or closed minded I am seem rather irrelevant.

Tim Robbins wrote:

All of his arguments have been well covered from Epicurius, to Russell etc.

Is that a bad thing?

Last time I checked Epicurius was dead, so I imagine it would be hard for him to go on the Late Late and discuss atheism.

mathias

I have read all of dawkins up to this latest one , which I havn't read yet and probably wont , he seems to have made a critical mistake in publishing this book as far as I can see ,

Any species is defined in terms of behaviour in its environment ( evolutionally speaking ) , We , that is the human race , are a social species defined in terms of our belief systems , it has always been so , it matters little on the truth of the belief system , just that the system is common , we have fought , exterminated , succeeded and achieved all we have done and all we will ever do based on common belief systems and goals.

Were it any other way , this weak human form would never have survived to the present ,we would have been a short lived snack for the earliest predators, it is only by gathering together in common groups and working together under common belief systems , language , religions , etc. that we have survived in the evolutionary arms race.

Arguing that we should abandon what has made us so successful and the dominant species on the planet ( our beliefs ! ) , is ludicrous ,
There will always be new belief systems vying in our own evolutionary arms race for dominance in the successful mankind of the future , whether or not that system is based on fact means nothing , all thats important is that the belief system is common and brings the social group together .
That is the definition of our species , we are apes who tell each other the stories we like !!

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

If you would like to counter, feel free. Otherwise your opinions on how biased or closed minded I am seem rather irrelevant.

Dawkins begin with his a straw man. All Christians think they world was made in 6 days.
Quinn counters and points out this is a straw man, that many theists and Christians accept evolution. Dawkins has no point.
Quinn challenges Dawkins as to the origin of matter. This is similar to Aristotle's first argument, Dawkins cannot answer. He just says Science might out someday but theology does not know now, he has no evidence of this.

Quinn challenges Dawkins on free will. Dawkins can't answer, bizzarely Dawkins say he's not interested. This topic doesn't interest him. What type of debating tactic is that you say "you are uninterested"!
Quinn challenges Dawkins on morality, does Dawkins just think are dictated by genes, Dawkins cannot give adequate answer.

Quinn highlighted the boundries of Science and also threw a few questions that any philsopher would have well able for.
Dawkins cannot answer what is outside the boundries of Science or the Philsophical aspects of atheism / theism.
Dawkins did not get Quinn on anything, never made him contradict himself or never gave him a question Quinn couldn't answer.
Winner IMO
Quinn.

Dawkins is a poor, I think one or two of the people that regularly post here could do better.

Zombrex

mathias wrote:

Arguing that we should abandon what has made us so successful and the dominant species on the planet ( our beliefs ! ) , is ludicrous ,

Not sure how you got that we evolved to be the most technologically advanced species on Earth due to our belief systems. I think our belief systems came after, not before, this happened, as a result of the increasing complexity of our brain and the formation of human consciousness.

Besides Dawkins as far as I can tell doesn't say we should abandon belief systems (neither does atheism), just the beliefs systems that are based on nonsense superstition.

mathias wrote:

all thats important is that the belief system is common and brings the social group together

Religion does neither. It isn't common, and it certainly doesn't bring people together.

mathias

Religion does neither. It isn't common, and it certainly doesn't bring people together.

Oh but it does bring people together , thats why wars are fought ,

Evolution cannot happen without competition , the social groups and belief systems will mutate , grow , renew and the strongest will out , history proves it time and time again ,

Just as we had the Sumerians , babylonians , egyptians , greeks , romans , christians , etc etc etc , all driven by a strong religious belief system , the dominant belief system will control most of the world for a time before being overtaken by the newest strongest system ad infinitum , the strongest now is probably America ( in god we trust etc. ) , in 100 or a 1000 years time who knows , one thing is for certain though , it wont be Atheism , this is an individual doctrine of a belief in nothing , and will never be the glue of any social group , its an aberration in the varied evolution of our species.

None of these civilisations showed any drive towards an understanding of truth per se , just towards an common understanding , truth is relative to what social group you are in , there are no real absolutes here , you must take a certain amount on faith , for instance , weve been on the moon right , cos we all saw it on TV. This " Fact " just like countless others , must be taken on faith , how many people can sequence DNA or even know how its done ? Precious few , but in this social group , in this time , I take this as fact , even though I can probably never know.

Either way , Evolutionally speaking , this is all irrelevant , all that matters is the social group , we protect with our laws , nuture with our cultures and grow as a group , surviving as long as we all agree to some extent that its good to be together and we all more or less have the same beliefs and values. If that ever goes away , this group disintegrates and the next one takes over , that is evolution at work , and we can no more help that than we can help breathing

Zombrex

mathias wrote:

Oh but it does bring people together , thats why wars are fought ,

Fair enough, religion brings small groups of people together so they can start large wars with other small groups of people. This is a good thing how exactly?

mathias wrote:

Evolution cannot happen without competition , the social groups and belief systems will mutate , grow , renew and the strongest will out , history proves it time and time again ,

You are confusing biological evolution with social evolution. They are not the same things. And neither are a necessarily a good thing.

mathias wrote:

one thing is for certain though , it wont be Atheism , this is an individual doctrine of a belief in nothing , and will never be the glue of any social group , its an aberration in the varied evolution of our species.

Again, social evolution not the same as biological evolution.

Secondly atheism is not the belief in nothing.

Thirdly evolution of ideas that are considered generally benefitial to society, such as science, medicine, law, democracy, social welfare, tend to happen, at least in modern times, as secular movements, and are not dependent on the particular religion that is in fashion at the time.